IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 20, NO.

2, MARCH 2005 343

Boost DC–AC Inverter: A New Control Strategy

Pablo Sanchis, Member, IEEE, Alfredo Ursæa, Member, IEEE, Eugenio Gubía, Member, IEEE, and
Luis Marroyo, Member, IEEE

Abstract—Boost dc–ac inverter naturally generates in a single
stage an ac voltage whose peak value can be lower or greater than
the dc input voltage. The main drawback of this structure deals
with its control. Boost inverter consists of Boost dc–dc converters
that have to be controlled in a variable-operation point condition.
The sliding mode control has been proposed as an option. How-
ever, it does not directly control the inductance averaged-current.
This paper proposes a control strategy for the Boost inverter in
which each Boost is controlled by means of a double-loop regula-
tion scheme that consists of a new inductor current control inner
loop and an also new output voltage control outer loop. These loops
include compensations in order to cope with the Boost variable op-
eration point condition and to achieve a high robustness to both
input voltage and output current disturbances. As shown by sim-
ulation and prototype experimental results, the proposed control
strategy achieves a very high reliable performance, even in difficult
transient situations such as nonlinear loads, abrupt load changes,
short circuits, etc., which sliding mode control cannot cope with.
Index Terms—Control systems, dc–ac power conversion, in-
verters, power conversion, power electronics, power generation,
power system control.
I. INTRODUCTION
around a particular operation point, for which the model is cal-
culated [6]–[8]. However, these methods are not appropriate
to control the individual Boosts of the inverter because now
the operation point experiments large variations and so do the
small-signal model parameters.
The sliding mode control has been proposed to control the
Boost inverter. This control strategy can deal with variable
operation point conditions and can therefore be applied to
both individual Boost converters [2], [4]. The sliding mode
control achieves good steady state results. However, it has
some disadvantages related to the required complex theory,
the variable switching frequency, the lack of an inductance
averaged-current control and the constraints to the controller
parameter selection [5].
This paper proposes a control strategy for the Boost inverter
in which each Boost is controlled by means of a double-loop
control scheme that consists of a new inductor current control
inner loop and an also new output voltage control outer loop
[9], [10]. Both control loops are based on the averaged contin-
uous-time model of the Boost topology [11]. The proposed con-
trol loops include several compensations in order to decouple
the converter model seen by the controller from the operation

T HE Boost dc–ac inverter, also known as Boost inverter,

consists of two individual Boost converters, as shown in
Fig. 1. In this topology, both individual Boosts are driven by
point. In so doing, the control is able to deal with the vari-
able operation condition of both Boosts. In order to improve
the system robustness against external disturbances, feedfor-
two 180 phase-shifted dc-biased sinusoidal references whose
ward control techniques have been proposed and applied to the
differential output is an ac output voltage [1], [2]. As a conse-
Boost dc–dc converter [12]–[14]. With the same aim, additional
quence, the peak value of this ac voltage can be lower or greater
feed-forward regulations are included in the proposed control
than the dc input voltage. The idea of controlling the phase-
loops that make the controlled system be robust to both dc input
shift between two Boost dc-dc converters in order to achieve
voltage and ac output current disturbances, what represents an
a dc-ac inverter is also provided by the theory of phase-mod-
additional advantage. As it will be shown through this paper, the
ulated inverters, which is presented and analyzed in [3]. The
direct control of the current makes possible to cope with special
Boost dc-ac inverter exhibits several advantages, the most fim-
situations that cannot be tackled by the sliding mode control,
portant of which is that it can naturally generate an ac output
such as nonlinear loads, abrupt load variations, and transient
voltage from a lower dc input voltage in a single power stage.
short circuit situations, keeping the inverter in a stable operating
The reduced number of switches that is required (only four) and
condition by means of limiting the inductor current. Because
the quality of the output voltage sine wave are additional ad-
of this ability to keep the system under control even in these
vantages that have been often mentioned in the literature [1],
situations, the inverter achieves a very reliable operation. On
[2], [4], [5].
the contrary, the sliding mode control is not able to deal with
The control of the ac output voltage requires controlling both
these situations, as it does not control the inductor current. A
Boost converters. However, the Boost converter is a difficult
prototype has been designed and physically developed. Simula-
system to be controlled. Several methods based on the small-
tion and experimental results, including those special situations
signal linear model have been designed to control the Boost
mentioned before, show the good performance of this new con-
trol strategy and its better characteristics in comparison with the
sliding mode control.
Manuscript received October 8, 2003; revised July 30, 2004. This paper was
presented in part at the 32nd IEEE-PESC’01 Conference, Vancouver, Canada,
June 17-21, 2001. Recommended by Associate Editor M. Vitelli.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engi- II. DOUBLE-LOOP CONTROL SCHEME FOR THE BOOST
neering, Universidad Publica de Navarra, Pamplona 31006, Spain (e-mail:
pablo.sanchis@ unavarra.es). The averaged model describes the dynamic behavior of the
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPEL.2004.843000 Boost up to frequencies below the switching frequency, typi-
0885-8993/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
344 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MARCH 2005

Fig. 1. Boost dc–ac inverter.

Fig. 2. Proposed inductor current control loop.

cally below half this frequency [11]. The model equations par- it is required in the Boost inverter. In order to deal with these
ticularized for the Boost 1 are described as follows: problems, and as an alternative to the sliding mode control, a
double-loop control strategy is proposed that consists of a new
(1) inductor current control inner loop and an also new capacitor
(2) voltage control outer loop. Both loops are shown in Figs. 2 and
3 particularized for Boost 1.
where and are the capacitor voltage and current, The plant to be controlled in the inductor current control loop
and the inductor voltage and current, the input voltage, shown in Fig. 2 is defined by (1) and (3). In variable opera-
the output current, and the duty cycle time-averaged tion conditions, these equations show a nonlinear system that
value. Subscript 1 denotes Boost 1. depends on the output voltage , and in which the input
The inductor and capacitor differential equations are voltage appears as an external disturbance. If the duty
cycle were the controller output, i.e., the control variable, the
(3) plant seen by the controller would exhibit a variable gain caused
by the variable output voltage. Therefore, the control variable is
(4) chosen to be the inductor voltage , and then the plant seen
by the converter is simply the Laplace transformation of (3).
where , , , and are the values for the inductance, ca- With this strategy, the input voltage influence is also cancelled.
pacity, and inductor and capacitor equivalent series resistance, The duty cycle is then obtained by means of the following
respectively. expression, in which is the controller output
From (1) and (2), the duty cycle can be worked out, and then,
by means of (3) and (4), the following expression can be ob- (6)
tained, in which internal resistances have been neglected:
From a different point of view, the proposed control strategy
(5) compensates the variable gain of the plant (the output voltage
) by means of a gain that is the inverse value of this output
The last expression shows the Boost dynamic bilinear be- voltage, and cancels the influence of the input voltage by
havior and the difficulty of designing an accurate and robust adding again to the control loop this disturbance with its oppo-
controller for this converter suitable for any operation point, as site value. The compensation of the output voltage can be done
SANCHIS et al.: Boost DC–AC INVERTER 345

Fig. 3. Proposed output voltage control loop.

due to the much higher current loop bandwidth in comparison given by the output current that exhibits the plant is can-
with the output voltage bandwidth. The cancellation of the input celled with the proposed strategy. This cancellation will have
voltage influence acts in fact as a feed-forward control. This can- a helpful influence on the system performance during quick or
cellation would not be required if the current loop bandwidth is sudden load variations. As the inductor current can be consid-
much faster than the input voltage dynamics. The controller is a ered instantaneously controlled, the final plant to be controlled
proportional-integral controller (PI) that can be easily designed consists only of the capacitor transfer function provided by (4),
by traditional methods. Variables are filtered and the duty cycle and therefore, the proportional-integral controller (PI) can now
is limited in order to avoid too high voltages and noise influ- be designed by simple traditional techniques. Filtering of vari-
ences. A freezing action of the controller integral term is acti- ables and freezing of the controller integral term are again used
vated in case of saturation. with no consequences for the control loop performance.
Concerning the output voltage loop, which is introduced in
Fig. 3, the plant to be controlled is now defined by (2) and (4). III. CONTROL STRATEGY FOR THE BOOST INVERTER
These equations show again a nonlinear behavior that depends
The control of the Boost dc-ac inverter is achieved by im-
on the duty cycle and the output current . The de-
plementing the previously described control strategy on both
sign of the control structure for the output voltage is based on
Boosts and driving their output voltages with proper dc-biased
the same philosophy as the current loop. If the control variable
sinusoidal references. Three options to generate these references
were now the current reference for the inner loop, the plant seen
are analyzed below.
by the controller would show again a variable gain caused by
Traditionally, both Boosts are driven by the following in-
the term . Therefore, the capacitor current is now
dependent references, obtained from the Boost inverter output
proposed to be the control variable and the plant seen by the con-
voltage reference:
troller is just the Laplace transformation of (4). The calculation
of the current reference from the capacitor current requires the (8)
use of the duty cycle , which appears inside the term
as shown in (2). However, the duty cycle dynamics is provided (9)
by the inner current loop, and its use in the current reference cal-
culation would cause a coupling between both inner and outer (10)
control loops that could make the system unstable. Although
the use of a strongly filtered value of the term has
where is the reference for the Boost inverter, and
been proved with good results, this term can be approximated
are the references for both individual Boost converters,
by if the inductor energy variations are neglected. This
respectively, and are the frequency and rms-value of the ac
approximation, that can be done due to the relatively small size
output voltage, respectively, and the reference dc-bias.
of the inductance in power Boost converters, achieves more ac-
However, references for both Boosts do not have to be inde-
curate and fast results. With this compensation strategy, duty
pendent. The main disadvantage of the independent references
cycle variations up to the voltage loop bandwidth will be suc-
is that the inverter output voltage is not directly controlled.
cessfully compensated, and therefore the system will accurately
As a consequence, this voltage can be affected by transient er-
track different voltage references up to the loop bandwidth. The
rors and dc offsets, and can show a poor rejection to external dis-
current reference is then given by the following expression, in
turbances such as sudden load changes. A possible solution for
which the controller output is now the capacitor current refer-
this problem is to set an independent reference for one Boost,
ence,
for instance the first one, and use the other Boost, the second
one, to control directly the inverter output voltage, as shown by
(7) the following equations:

The proposed output voltage control loop can also be seen (11)
as the result of compensating the plant variable gain (defined
by ) with . In addition, the external disturbance (12)
346
Fig. 4. Nominal simulation results.
Fig. 5. Sliding mode control scheme.
With references given by (11) and (12), the second Boost con-
troller can cancel inverter output voltage dc offsets and reject
output voltage disturbances up to its control loop bandwidth.
Another option can be proposed that improves the system re-
sponse in case of disturbances. Boost dynamics depends on the
actual value of its duty cycle, which is obviously changing in
this application. Fastest dynamics appear at the lowest levels of
the duty cycles. Therefore, the Boost that has to compensate the
output voltage variations can be selected depending on the sign
of the sinusoidal output voltage. Then, the references for each
Boost are now
(13)
The three options to generate Boost references explained
above have been analyzed. The third option has been confirmed
to achieve the quicker performance in load transients. However,
an important restriction of this third option is its difficult phys-
ical implementation. Due to the necessary reference changes
at the sinusoidal waveform zero crossings, small disturbances
can then appear in the output voltage that can create small har-
monics, especially in digital implementations with important
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MARCH 2005
delays. In these systems, the second option should be chosen
to be implemented.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH
THE SLIDING MODE CONTROL
In order to validate the proposed control strategy, an IGBT-
based Boost inverter prototype like the one shown in Fig. 1 has
been designed, built and tested. The description of its physical
implementation is given in Section V. The prototype inverter
parameters and specifications are
H F
kW V
V Hz
V kHz (14)
where is the inverter rated power, the switching frequency
and the rest of the elements were introduced in the previous sec-
tions. Equivalent series resistances of inductors and capacitors
( , , , and ) are close to 10 m .
The control strategy proposed in this paper is implemented
on the prototype. Each Boost is controlled by means of the
double-loop control scheme described before, and the voltage
references for both Boosts are generated by means of the second
option previously analyzed. An additional advantage of the pro-
posed control strategy for the Boost inverter is that the dc voltage
can be tuned as a function of the input voltage , as
this voltage is measured by the control strategy. In this way,
the output voltages of the Boosts achieve the minimum pos-
sible values, and then the switching losses are minimized for
any input voltage .
The proportional-integral controller of the inner current con-
trol loop is designed in order to achieve a 50 -phase margin and
a 4-kHz bandwidth. The proportional-integral controller of the
outer voltage loop is calculated with the same phase margin and
a 400-Hz bandwidth. These values make possible 50-Hz voltage
references be accurately tracked.
Nominal operation simulation results of the Boost inverter
when it is controlled by means of the control strategy proposed
SANCHIS et al.: Boost DC–AC INVERTER
Fig. 6. Sliding mode control: robustness to a 100-Hz 20% square-wave disturbance in the input voltage.
in this paper are presented in Fig. 4. In this situation, the Boost
inverter supplies a 32.3- resistive load. These results show that
the double-loop control scheme for each Boost obtains an accu-
rate output voltage tracking with both Boosts working in a vari-
able operation condition (graph on the left). As a consequence,
the inverter output voltage is also accurately tracked (graph on
the right).
As mentioned in the introduction, the sliding mode control
has been proposed in the literature to control the Boost inverter.
In order to compare this control with the control strategy pro-
posed in this paper, a sliding mode controller is designed and
implemented in both Boosts of the inverter. Basic scheme of the
sliding mode control applied to Boost 1 is shown in Fig. 5. The
sliding mode control defines a sliding surface that is a linear
combination of inductor current and capacitor voltage errors,
with coefficients and , respectively. This surface generates
the switching pulses to the semiconductor devices by means of a
hysteresis comparator. In principle, the switching frequency that
results from this scheme is not constant. This can be a problem,
although there are more complex implementations in which a
constant frequency can be achieved. As it is not possible to know
the current reference, the current error is calculated in the sliding
mode control scheme as the high-frequency component of the
inductor current. The main disadvantage of this current error
calculation is the lack of control of the current average value,
which can lead the current to reach high and dangerous values
in some situations such as nonlinear loads, short circuit tran-
sients and strong load changes. The calculation of the control
parameters and is restricted by the sliding mode existence
and the system response fastness [2], [4]. For the Boost inverter
prototype, the designed values of and are 0.0429 and 0.03,
respectively.
The sliding mode control nominal simulation results are sim-
ilar to those achieved by the proposed strategy. However, the
robustness of the proposed control strategy to external distur-
bances is higher than that of the sliding mode control. Figs. 6 and
7 show the simulation results for both control strategies when a
100-Hz 20% square-wave disturbance is added to the input dc
voltage. As it is observed, the sliding mode scheme becomes
347
unstable (Fig. 6) while the proposed strategy achieves a stable
control of the inverter output voltage with a very fast response
(Fig. 7). The sliding mode control does not control directly the
inductor current, which reaches unavoidable values that would
obviously activate the protections in a real system. As a conse-
quence, the sliding controller fails to control the system. On the
contrary, the inner current loop of the proposed strategy keeps
the current under control limiting its value to the upper satura-
tion limit of 100 A.
The reliability when supplying energy to a local electric net-
work is one of the most important properties of a generation
unit. The ability of the generation unit to overcome transient
situations with no activation of its protections means a high
quality, as it happens for instance in autonomous photovoltaic
systems. Transient short circuits imply difficult situations for
the inverters. The higher robustness of an inverter to these short
circuits and its reliability in these situations will involve an im-
portant advantage in comparison with other inverters. There are
many situations in which short circuits can appear. For instance,
loads connected to the generation unit can fail causing thus a
short circuit, the duration of which depends on the protection
fuse time response. The sudden connection to the generation
unit of electronic loads that include a diode bridge input stage
with a discharged capacitor is another example of a transient
short circuit situation. Even the starting of electrical motors and
transformers can cause momentary short circuits.
In order to compare the reliability of the sliding mode control
and the proposed control strategy, both control schemes have
been tested in a transient short circuit operation. As it was men-
tioned before, an important disadvantage of the sliding mode
control is the lack of control of the inductor current average
value. As a consequence, the sliding mode control cannot cope
with short circuit transients, and shows a very poor performance
with nonlinear loads and abrupt load changes. In contrast with
the sliding mode control, the new control strategy proposed in
this paper does not have this problem due to the existence of an
inner current control loop that controls the actual value of the
inductor current and limits the maximum value of the inductor
current.
348
Fig. 7. Proposed control strategy: robustness to a 100-Hz 20% square-wave disturbance in the input voltage.
Fig. 8. Robustness to a transient short circuit: (a) sliding mode controller and (b) proposed control strategy.
Fig. 8 shows the robustness of both control strategies to a
one second transient short circuit that occurs during the inverter
nominal operation. Results show that the sliding mode con-
troller is not able to overcome this situation. As it is shown
in Fig. 8(a), the inductor current and output voltage reach very
high values, up to 500 A and 800 V, that would activate the in-
verter overcurrent and overvoltage protections in a real system.
On the contrary, the proposed control strategy keeps the system
in a stable condition during the transient short circuit and re-
covers quickly the output voltage control when it finishes, as
shown in Fig. 8(b). The inner current control loop makes pos-
sible the short circuit operation, with currents limited to their
upper and lower saturation limits, 100 A and 50 A, respec-
tively. The absence of overcurrents and overvoltages avoid in-
verter protections be activated, and the system can go on oper-
ating after the short circuit situation, what means a very high
reliability. In short, the proposed control strategy achieves a re-
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MARCH 2005
liable, stable and fast control of the inverter output voltage even
in these difficult operation situations.
V. PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
As it was indicated in the previous section, a Boost dc-ac
inverter prototype has been physically implemented in order
to test the satisfactory performance of the proposed control
strategy. Two 150- H 50-A rated rms-current inductors are
used as inductors and , and two 30- F 800-V rated
dc-voltage electrolytic capacitors are used as capacitors
and . The values for the rated power , the input voltage
, the reference dc-bias voltage , the output rms-voltage
and the output frequency are the same as those specified
in (14). Two Semikron SKM100GB123D modules each one
of them consisting of two IGBTs and two diodes are used to
build each Boost dc–dc converter [15]. Switching frequency
SANCHIS et al.: Boost DC–AC INVERTER
Fig. 9. Physical implementation block diagram of the control strategy on the Boost dc–ac inverter.
is 20 kHz, as given in (19). SKHI 23/12 double drivers from
Semikron are used for the SKM100GB123D modules. On- and
off-gate resistances ( and ) are 15 . The modules
are mounted on a P16 heatsink also from Semikron.
Each Boost is controlled by means of the double-loop con-
trol scheme proposed in this paper. Fig. 9 shows the physical
implementation block diagram of the control strategy. It con-
sists mainly of a digital board that implements the voltage con-
trol loops, an analog board that implements the current control
loops, and the IGBT drivers. The control parameters are the
same as those indicated in the simulations. The bandwidth is
4 kHz for the current control loop and 400 Hz for the voltage
control loop. 50 -phase margins are specified for both loops.
With these parameters the proportional and integral constants
of the current loop PI controller are 3.529 and 8.44 , re-
spectively, while they are 0.059 and 4.99 , respectively,
for the voltage loop PI controller.
The digital board is a dSPACE DS1102 board that operates in
this case at a sample time of around 100 s [16]. This board is
programmed to digitally implement the output voltage control
loop proposed in Fig. 3 for both Boost dc–dc converters. It also
generates the references and for the voltage con-
trol loops. These references are generated in order to control the
inverter output voltage by means of the second option described
by (11) and (12), that is, by driving a Boost with an indepen-
dent reference and using the other Boost to directly control the
inverter output voltage.
The analog board includes the current control inner loop pro-
posed in Fig. 2 for both Boost dc–dc converters, as well as
the PWM-switching orders generation. The current references
349
and are obtained from the DSP board, where the
voltage control loops are implemented. From the two inner cur-
rent control loops, the duty cycles and are obtained, and
the PWM switching orders are generated for the IGBT’s of both
Boost dc-dc converters. Duty cycles are limited to 0.95 and 0.05.
Fig. 10 shows the electronic circuitry that implements the cur-
rent control loop and the PWM-switching orders generation for
the Boost 1. The circuitry for the Boost 2 is identical. The cir-
cuitry is divided into different blocks in order to make it clearer.
A LEM LA125-P current sensor is used to measure the inductor
current while two LEM LV25-P voltage sensors are used
to measure the output voltage and the input voltage .
Several TL084 are used as quadruple operational amplifiers and
LM311 as voltage comparators. An AD632 from Analog De-
vices is used to implement the mathematical division required
to compensate the output voltage and then obtain the duty
cycle . The PWM switching orders are generated by means of
a Unitrode UC3637. Although in Fig. 10 only the A-outputs of
this component appear as used, the B-outputs are also used in
the analog board to generate the switching orders for the Boost
2. HEF4081B quadruple 2-input AND gates are used to cancel
the switching orders in case of activation of the inhibit signal,
which comes from the protections circuitry described below. Fi-
nally, the two SKHI 23/12 drivers receive the switching orders
for the corresponding IGBTs and . These drivers have been
included in Fig. 10 in order to make the circuit operation clearer.
Although the main start/stop and electronic protections cir-
cuitry has been represented as a different block in Fig. 9, these
circuits are included in the analog board. Protections against
overcurrents and overvoltages have been implemented as well
350 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MARCH 2005

Fig. 10. Electronic circuitry that implements the current control inner loop of Boost 1 and the PWM switching orders generation for the corresponding IGBTs
T and T (Circuitry for the Boost 2 is identical).

Fig. 11. Prototype experimental tests.

as against low signal dc supply voltage. If the protections or on and the switching orders to the IGBTs are cancelled. The
the main stop are activated, an inhibit signal (Inh) is switched inhibit signal is also distributed to the control loops in order to
SANCHIS et al.: Boost DC–AC INVERTER
Fig. 12. Linear load experimental results (100-
resistive load): (a) nominal operation, (b) load connection, and (c) load disconnection (v , v
100 V/div; i : 2 A/div).
make zero the controller outputs and references and be prepared
for a later starting.
Fig. 11 shows the experimental tests carried out on the pro-
totype. These tests include linear and nonlinear load operation
(Fig. 11(a) and (b), respectively), and transient output short cir-
cuit performance [see Fig. 11(c)]. A Tektronix TDS 510 A oscil-
loscope is used to measure and capture the electrical variables.
Nominal operation results with a 100- resistive linear load
are shown in Fig. 12. Steady-state operation is presented in
Fig. 12(a) while sudden load connection and disconnection are
shown in Fig. 12(b) and (c), respectively. As expected from the
simulations, both Boosts are successfully controlled in a vari-
able operation condition, and the control strategy achieves a fast
and accurate control of the inverter output voltage. The robust-
ness to output current disturbance is shown in Fig. 12(b) and (c),
where the load is suddenly connected and disconnected. The dis-
turbance is satisfactorily rejected by the control strategy, even
when it appears at the output voltage peak values.
The nonlinear load used in the nonlinear operation test con-
sists of a diode bridge, a capacitor and a resistive dc load, as
it was shown in Fig. 11(b). At present, this structure is quite
351
, v , v :
common as the input stage of electronic power supplies. Test
results for the steady state operation are shown in Fig. 13(a),
in which only the inductor current of Boost 2 is presented. The
values for the capacitor and the load resistance are 235 F and
330 , respectively, while the diode bridge is a Semikron SKB
30/08. In spite of the nonlinear load, the output voltage distor-
tion that appears around the peak values is not important. These
distortions are due to the capacitor charge, which means a quick
transient short circuit. During these periods, inductor currents
are effectively controlled inside their limits by means of the
inner current loops, as can be observed in the second Boost in-
ductor current waveform. The sudden connection of a nonlinear
load represents a transient short circuit caused by the dc ca-
pacitor charge that finishes when this capacitor is charged. The
bigger the capacitor is, the longer the short circuit lasts. Results
of this connection are shown in Fig. 13(b), in which the value
for the capacitor is now 470 F and the load resistance is not
connected in order to show only the capacitor charge effect. As
it is observed in the output voltage waveform, the connection of
the nonlinear load and the capacitor charge process produces a
short circuit operation that is controlled by means of the inner
352
Fig. 13. Experimental results with a nonlinear load consisting of a diode bridge, a capacitor and a resistive dc load: (a) steady-state operation (v : 250 V/div;
i : 10 A/div) and (b) load connection (v : 250 V/div; i : 20 A/div).
Fig. 14. Transient short circuit experimental results (v : 250 V/div;
20 A/div).
current loops. The proposed control strategy achieves a stable
control of the system and the current is limited avoiding thus
the activation of the inverter protections. Once the capacitor is
charged, the inverter output voltage control resumes to its steady
state operation.
Finally, the system performance during an output short cir-
cuit is tested. This is the strongest test that can be applied to
an inverter and shows the ability of the control strategy to over-
come this situation without damaging the inverter or activating
the overvoltage and overcurrents protections. The test has been
carried out by suddenly short circuiting the output of the in-
verter through a fuse, as exposed in Fig. 11(c). The short cir-
cuit duration depends on the fuse melting time and the electric
arc extinction. Results are shown in Fig. 14. As it is observed,
the proposed control scheme achieves a stable inverter control
even in this extreme situation. The inductor currents are per-
manently controlled to their limited values during the short cir-
cuit situation with no protections activation. Once the short cir-
cuit has finished, the system resumes almost immediately to the
steady-state operation with no oscillations at all. In short, the
proposed control strategy avoids protections shot during these
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MARCH 2005
situations and then achieves a very high reliability. Anyway, de-
pending on the desired inverter performance the protections shot
can be programmed to be activated for long short circuits.
VI. CONCLUSION
A control strategy for the Boost inverter has been proposed
in this paper in which both Boosts of the Boost inverter are con-
trolled by means of a double-loop control scheme that consists
of a new inductor current control inner loop and an also new
output voltage control outer loop. In order to deal with variable
operation point condition of both Boosts, these loops include
several compensations that make possible an accurate control
of the Boosts. In addition, some feed-forward regulations are
also designed that make the system highly robust to both input
voltage and output current disturbances.
i : The proposed control strategy is validated both by simulation
and prototype experimental results. In addition, it is compared
with the sliding mode control. Nominal linear load performance
is similar for both control strategies. However, the sliding mode
control is not able to keep the system controlled under special
transient situations, such as nonlinear loads, input voltage dis-
turbances, and transient short circuits, while the proposed con-
trol strategy overcomes these situations with a robust, reliable
and stable control of the system. In these situations, the sliding
mode control becomes unstable and currents and voltages reach
impossible values that would activate the protections in a real
system. That means a very low reliability of the sliding-mode
controlled system due, mainly, to the lack of control of the in-
ductor current. On the contrary, the direct current control of the
proposed control strategy makes possible to cope with these sit-
uations keeping the system under a stable operation condition
with no overcurrents and overvoltages.
Tests carried out on the physical prototype controlled by
means of the new control strategy proposed in this paper
confirm the results obtained by simulation. Experimental tests
include constant operation, connection and disconnection of
both linear and nonlinear loads, as well as transient short
circuits. The proposed control strategy achieves a stable, accu-
rate and robust control in all these situations. Particularly, the
SANCHIS et al.: Boost DC–AC INVERTER
experimental prototype was tested in a short circuit situation
in which the output was short-circuited during almost three
cycles. As was exposed in the paper regarding the experimental
waveforms, the proposed control strategy achieves a stable con-
trol of the system during the short circuit by means of limiting
the inductor current to its programmed saturation value. After
the short circuit, the system resumes to its nominal situation
without any overvoltage or overcurrent. In short, the proposed
control strategy achieves a very high reliability, what means a
very valuable property of the generation unit. The so-controlled
Boost inverter can be advantageously used in UPS, photovoltaic
systems, etc.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Cáceres and I. Barbi, “A Boost DC-AC converter: operation, analysis,
control and experimentation,” in Proc. IEEE IECON’95 Conf., Orlando,
FL, Nov. 5–11, 1995, pp. 546–551.
[2] R. O. Cáceres and I. Barbi, “A Boost dc–ac converter: analysis, design
and experimentation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 14, no. 1, pp.
134–141, Jan. 1999.
[3] M. K. Kazimierczuk, “Synthesis of phase-modulated dc/ac inverters and
dc/dc converters,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. B, vol. 139, pp. 387–394, Jul.
1992.
[4] R. O. Cáceres and I. Barbi, “Sliding mode controller for the Boost in-
verter,” in Proc. IEEE CIEP’96, Cuernavaca, Mexico, Oct. 14–17, 1996,
pp. 247–252.
[5] N. Vázquez, J. Álvarez, C. Aguilar, and J. Arau, “Some critical aspects
in sliding mode control design for the Boost inverter,” in Proc. IEEE
CIEP’98 Conf., Morelia, Mexico, Oct. 12–15, 1998, pp. 76–81.
[6] L. Dixon, “Average current mode control of switching power supplies,”
in Proc. Unitrode Power Supply Design Sem. (SEM700), 1990.
[7] R. D. Middlebrook, “Topics in multiple-loop regulators and current-
mode programming,” in Proc. IEEE PESC’85 Conf., Toulouse, France,
Jun. 24–28, 1985, pp. 716–732.
[8] R. Naim, G. Weiss, and S. Ben-Yaakov, “H control applied to Boost
power converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 12, no. 4, pp.
677–683, Jul. 1997.
[9] P. Sanchis Gúrpide, O. Alonso Sádaba, and L. Marroyo Palomo, “Vari-
able operating point robust control strategy for Boost converters,” in
Proc. 9th Eur. Conf. Power Electronics Applications (EPE’01), Graz,
Austria, Aug. 27–29, 2001.
[10] P. Sanchis Gúrpide, O. Alonso Sádaba, L. Marroyo Palomo, T. Meynard,
and E. Lefeuvre, “A new control strategy for the Boost dc–ac inverter,”
in Proc. IEEE PESC’01 Conf., Vancouver, Canada, Jun. 17–21, 2001,
pp. 974–979.
[11] R. D. Middlebrook and S. Cuk, “A general unified approach to mod-
eling switching-converter power stages,” in Proc. IEEE PESC’76 Conf.,
Cleveland, OH, Jun. 8–10, 1976, pp. 18–34.
[12] M. K. Kazimierczuk and A. Massarini, “Feedforward control of dc-dc
PWM Boost converter,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I Fundam. Theory
Appl., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 143–148, Feb. 1997.
[13] M. K. Kazimierczuk and L. A. Starman, “Dynamic performance of
PWM dc-dc Boost converter with input voltage feedforward control,”
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1473–1481, Dec. 1999.
[14] J. A. Weimer, M. K. Kazimerczuk, A. Massarini, and R. C. Cravens,
“Feedforward control of aircraft bus ac Boost converter,” U.S. Patent
5 982 156, Nov. 9, 1999.
[15] Semikron. (2003) Semikron Databook 2003, Nuremburg, Germany.
[Online] Available: http://www.semikron.com
[16] dSPACE. (2004) dSPACE Catalogue 2004. [Online] Available:
http://www.dspace.com
353
Pablo Sanchis (M’03) received the M.Sc. degree in
management and business administration, and the
M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering
from the Public University of Navarra, Pamplona,
Spain, in 1994, 1995, and 2002, respectively.
From 1996 to 1998, he was a Guest Researcher at
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Nether-
lands, on the field of control of electrical machines.
Since 1998, he has been an Assistant Professor at the
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
Public University of Navarra, where he has also been
involved in many research projects mainly in co-operation with industry. His
research interests include power electronics, distributed generation, control of
power converters, photovoltaic and hybrid systems, alternative energy systems,
and hydrogen generation from renewable sources.
Alfredo Ursæa (M’04) received the B.S. (with
honors) and M.S. (with honors) degrees in electrical
engineering from the Public University of Navarra,
Pamplona, Spain, in 2001 and 2004, respectively,
where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree.
In 2002, he was a Researcher with the Department
of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Public
University of Navarra, Spain. In 2003, he joined this
department as an Assistant Professor. Since 2002,
he has been involved in several research projects
mainly related to alternative energy systems. His
interests concern hydrogen generation from renewable energy sources, power
electronics, and photovoltaic systems.
Eugenio Gubía (M’04) received the M.Sc. and the
Ph.D. degrees in industrial engineering from the
Public University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, in
1995, and 2003, respectively.
In 1996, he joined the Power Electronic Group,
Electrical and Electronic Department, Public
University of Navarra, where he is currently an
Assistant Professor and is also involved in research
projects mainly in co-operation with industry.
His research interests are in the field of renewable
energies, power converters, electrical power systems
quality, and EMI.
Luis Marroyo (M’04) received the M.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering from the University of
Toulouse, France, in 1993, the M.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering from the Public University of
Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, in 1997, and the Ph.D.
degree from the LEEI-ENSEEIHT INP Toulouse,
France, in 1999.
From 1993 to 1998, he was Assistant Professor
with the Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, Public University of Navarra, where
he has been an Associate Professor since 1998. His
research interests are in power electronics, grid quality, and renewable energy.